shaun39 what you wrote confuses me. You say in Iowa there's plenty of work, but a recent NY Times article interviewed a man in Wisconsin with two master's degrees who had to take a job as a janitor at the fraction of the pay he was making before the economy went bust. Isn't wisconsin close to Iowa, why won't the unemployed in wisconsin take these jobs right across the state line.

I am seeing more and more anger in this country. Not only do the haves attack the have nots, they are also taking aim at civil servants. Attacking teacher seniority rules, which would be unfathomable in any other industry. And blatant and thinly disguised jealousy of government workers pensions.

The US unemployment stat is the second biggest lie published by the US government, after our inflation stat. What happened to those who are unemployed for more than 6 months or a year and stopped looking for work? Did they just get pushed over a cliff/fed to the sharks so we don't have to count them anymore? It's time for the US government to stop lying. Real unemployment is more like 22%.

Want 9.0% REAL unemployment? Send packing all the illegals and all here on work visa! The truely talented ones can reapply for an O-1 visa for outstanding individuals, the rest here on H1, H2, H3, H4, L1, L2, L3...all "temporary worker" status. It's time for them to go. We need these jobs back.

Increased productivity, increased profits, decreased employment.
Decreased employment, stock market increases.
Concern that this lowers the consumer market is no problem. The markets of the future are outside of America. The CEO of bailed out GM refers to China as the Crown Jewel of the Universe. We have gone from outsourcing jobs to outsourcing industries. GM now makes more cars in China than in America. GM is a small part of this attitude amongst corporate America. Follow the growth; it's not at home.

Who will actually provide real jobs with living wages, since this means higher costs to those who do it. We make so little of what we consume...AMERICAN STANDAR makes its toilets in Mexico.

Is there a real solution to the problem of jobs in America? Your guess!

Do not paint a optimistic picture.
Stock markets and bankers are booming.
But man on the street is getting poorer and more people are underemployed, unemployed or given up seeking jobs totally.
It may not be too farfetched to say that US poor and middle class may do an Egypt.

This article reflects the classical case of 'discouraged workers'. To be completely honest, I do not consider fluctuations in the rate of unemployment in the 0 to 1 percentage point range reflective of anything. Firstly, you have the whole calculation fiasco and different surveys, etc, as the other guys have mentioned. Secondly, recovery will show changes in the range of 2-3%.

It seems, that the two surveys are not giving the true picture. There must be something in between. What about the people who do not need jobs, or who were already employed? In a survey, how can you take such incomplete information? Obviously, you have dis-counted some people in the twin survey, and counted them among the people who do not need jobs, or who were already employed.

Unemployment claims were also likely down due to the blizzard like conditions, which caused many people to stay home until weather improved. I am guessing the numbers for unemployment claims will be higher with the next report, as folks came out and were able to go to their local offices to file their claims.

Oh, Comparing things like inflation and unemployment especially in a long term, you need to state that the official government way of calculating these things has changed over time. If unemployment was counted as it was say 20 years ago, it would be at least 16%.

As this article hints at but doesn't get around to explaining, is the official government unemployment rate "U3" drops people off the number after a year if they are no longer showing up at the unemployment offices, it doesn't mean they are not looking for work. "u6" is a better indicator for the economy, and that is where i get my 16% unemployment rate.

it takes fewer and fewer humans that are employed to produce a greater amount of goods and services per human or machine than ever before. not only will business need less workers in the future but will also need less machines as well! business needs more customers and less workers (or machines). countries with a larger youth component will have social and economic problems. those with an aging population may benefit from needing fewer employed people. there is a 'brave new world' in the future but it may not be great for a lot of people. I wont be around!

It's worth mentioning that the writer zips across the time line without mentioning how the US Bureau of Labor Statistics' method of counting unemployment has changed over the years.

"While we are on the subject of reality, after one year, the unemployed are no longer counted in government statistics. If unemployment was computed the way BLS did it prior to 1994, the true unemployment rate (according to Shadowstats.com) would be 22.2%." --- From: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27435.htm

For those of us enterpreneurs dependent on a realistic set of what really ought to be run-of-the-mill data, it shouldn't be necessary to have to second guess the Economist.

If the US wants to jump start its sagging economy, American policymakers should turn their attention not toward innovation or education reform, but export growth. Transforming the US into an export-led economy will require a transition away from the country’s cancerous “Corporate America” culture—but it will also solve plenty of other problems along the way.http://hussainabdulhussain.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-exports-should-be-at...

Its actually quite simple - the US Government now makes it more attractive through extended unemployment benefits, welfare and food stamps for the least productive and lowest segments of America's labor force to stay unemployed vs. finding work. There is an iron-clad connection between labor participation and the fact that Gov't offers a minimum of 99 weeks of unemployment insurance and the highest rate of food-stamp use in US history.

The mystery to me is why even The Economist is missing one crucial point:

The household survey contacts random households, as described.
The employer survey contacts large existing businesses-- it can not measure new employment at newly created companies.
Research has made it very clear that new jobs come overwhelmingly from new small companies.

These two measures often diverge when the economy is shifting directions, or in this case starting to really grow more strongly.

It is reasonable to believe that the employment survey is the more accurate one at the moment.

Bowl Weevils, your reply implies a decline in social moral. Men are not doing their shares in supporting a family. Too many single parent families. I guess those are the prices that we pay for freedom of choice.

Shaun39, Many urban poor and unemployed people do not or cannot have a car. It is extremely expensive to learn to drive, own and insure a vehicle, and find housing with parking in many cities. People who have never been behind the wheel cannot just "land a job driving a truck".

Single parents also cannot just "land a job driving a truck" without abandoning their children or paying for childcare at rates that make it foolish to try to work.

And treating the loss of family and friends that comes with dislocation as negligible further demonstrates your callous misunderstanding of the predicaments many poor families face.

If you're desperate, you can definitely land a job driving a truck. If you're hell bent on earning enough to support a large family, but don't have the education or connections, you can still drive trucks in Alaska or sign up as a grunt for the oil industry.

If you're willing to relocate, there is still an abundance of highly paid manual jobs in the US.

There might not be in a few decades time - but right now, there's no shortage of work. Leave Detroit; leave LA; come to high employment states like Iowa. For a working age man, not-working is not an option. You're an American: you're proud and you care about your social status.

If workforce participation really is falling among working age males (those above college age), and if this trend continues to persist through the recovery, then there is a profound cultural transformation underway.